A. Bikshapathi v. District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Mar 2011
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
:PRESENT: THEHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 7907 of 2011 Between: A. Bikshapathi, S/o. Komaraiah, R/o. Ratnagiri, Bheemadevarapalli,, Karimnagar District., ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector,, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing and detaining the petitioner's LMV Goods Carriage registration bearing No. AP 15V 6724 Vehicle Check Report No. 0324771, dated 27.11.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondents to release the vehicle forthwith, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. B.CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following
ORDER:
SD/-B.LAKSHMI KAMESWARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector,, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 3) One CC to SRI. B.CHANDRA SHEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4) Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT High Court Of A.P. Hyd. [OUT] 5) Two CD Copies HIGH COURT LNRJ DATED: 25-3-2011 ORDER: WP.NO: 7907 OF 2011
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25 Mar 2011. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.